header-logo header-logo

14 March 2013
Issue: 7552 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Motormouth cleared

Car manufacturer runs out of battery in Court of Appeal

Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson did not libel the makers of an electric car, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In Tesla Motors Ltd & Anor v BBC [2013] EWCA Civ 152, Lord Justice Moore-Bick dismissed Tesla’s appeal over an unfavourable review of its Roadster, an electric sports car based on the Lotus Elise.

The legal action centred on Clarkson’s comment during an episode of Top Gear broadcast in 2008 that Tesla said the car “would do 200 miles” when in fact it ran out of battery after just 55 miles on the Top Gear test track. This was followed by footage of the electric Roadster being pushed into the hangar.

Tesla argued Clarkson’s comments were defamatory because they implied it “intentionally or recklessly grossly misled potential purchasers” by claiming the car had a longer range than it did. Tesla said the BBC film contained other inaccuracies, including saying another Roadster had broken brakes, and claimed malicious falsehood on the BBC’s part in order to cause the company pecuniary damage.

However, Mr Justice Tugendhat dismissed the claim, noting that no reasonable person would compare the car’s performance on the Top Gear test track, which involved heavy cornering and acceleration, with that on public roads; therefore they would not infer Tesla had set out to mislead. The malicious falsehood claim did not go to appeal due to causation issues.

Dismissing Tesla’s appeal, Moore-Bick LJ said: “The fact is that the difference between the two was obviously so great that a reasonable viewer would realise that the comparison was meaningless. In my view, therefore, the judge was right to hold that the words complained of were incapable of bearing the meaning which Tesla sought to attribute to them.”

Referring to the case of Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75, Moore-Bick LJ  said there were difficulties identifying any pecuniary loss likely to have been caused by the false statements, although he would “hesitate” to describe the proceedings as an abuse of process.

Issue: 7552 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll